The delay and laches in seeking appointment on compassionate ground, and the lapse of 30 years since the employee's death, barred the claimant from entitlement to such appointment.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 326 of 2021

The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 55 days in filing the instant appeal.

2. No counter affidavit to the Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the respondent.

3. Heard the parties.

4. Having regard to the averments made in this Interlocutory Application and considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 326 of 2021 is allowed and delay of 55 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No. 573 of 2019

6. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard on merit today itself.

7. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against order/judgment dated 18.06.2019 passed in W.P. (L) No. 2089 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the Award dated 21.07.2016, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 40 of 2013 by which the petitioner was held entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, was quashed and set aside by allowing the writ petition filed on behalf of Management-writ petitioner.

8. The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings in the writ petition, which require to be enumerated, are as hereunder :

One Dhanua Kamin (mother of the claimant) who was in regular employment of M/s BCCL died in harness on 06.04.1992.

It is the case of the claimant that there was an agreement between the parties dated 10.04.1992 for providing employment to one dependent of the deceased after he/she attains majority. On the strength of said agreement, the claimant-son sometimes in the year 1998 applied for appointment on compassionate ground and was sent for Medical Board for determination of his age, but, in spite of repeated representations no employment was provided to the dependent-son.

Being aggrieved, the dependent-son, namely, Dharambir Beldar preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5267 of 2007, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2008.

After dismissal of the writ petition, the claimant through Union, namely Koyala Ispat Mazdoor Panchayat raised an industrial dispute, which culminated into reference being Reference Case No. 40 of 2013, wherein reference was made to the effect :

“Whether the action of the management of Madhuban Colliery under Barora Area of M/S BCCL in denying employment to Sri Dharambir Beldar, depenant son of Late Dhanwa Kamin in violation of Agreement dated 10.04.1992 is fair and justified? To what relief the dependant son of deceased workman is entitled?”

The Tribunal answered the reference in favour of claimant and hold that he is entitled to get employment, as would appear from paragraph 15 of the Award dated 21.07.2016, which reads as under :

“15. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that action of the management of Madhuban Colliery under Barora Area of M/S BCCL in denying employment to Shri Dharambir Beldar son of Late Dhanwa Kamin in violation of agreement dt. 10.04.1992 is not fair and justified. Hence he is entitled to get employment within 30 days from the publication of the award.”

The management, being aggrieved with the said award, preferred writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 2089 of 2017, which was allowed quashing the Award dated 21.07.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 40 of 2013, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred.

9. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that even though the writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 5267 of 2007, was dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2008 but since there was a reference for adjudication of the dispute pertaining to justification of the decision of the management by which the writ petition was denied appointment on compassionate ground, the Tribunal has considered the factual aspect and con